Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pravin K. Tulsyan.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava.

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:

• The appeal was filed by the claimants against the award dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, which had rejected the claim petition in toto. (!)
• The incident occurred on 27.03.2012, where the deceased fell from a trolley driven rashly and negligently by the respondent, sustaining injuries that led to his death. (!)
• The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs.20,00,000/-, but the Tribunal dismissed it on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the accident. (!)
• The counsel for the appellants argued that an FIR was registered under Section 304-A of IPC and the Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. supported the claim of negligence, yet the Tribunal awarded nothing. (!)
• The respondents argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that the driver had been acquitted under Section 304-A of IPC, claiming there was no evidence of the driver's involvement. (!)
• Evidence included the examination of the widow (PW-1) and an eyewitness (PW-2), whose statements corroborated the manner of the accident. (!)
• Police documents, including the FIR, Final Report, Property Seizure memo, and Postmortem Report, were exhibited to prove the death occurred due to the vehicular accident caused by the respondent. (!)
• The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition without appreciating the material documents showing the accident was caused by the driver. (!)
• The Court clarified that negligence in motor accident claims must be proved on the basis of preponderance of possibilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (!)
• The Supreme Court judgment in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi was cited to establish that the burden is on claimants to prove negligence, but the standard of proof differs from criminal cases. (!)
• The Court referred to N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Anmal in the context of assessing liability and evidence. (!)
• The Tribunal's finding that the death did not arise from a vehicular accident was set aside based on the available evidence. (!)
• The Motor Vehicles Act is described as a welfare legislation, and Tribunals have a duty to award just and proper compensation considering all factors. (!)
• Due to the pendency of the matter for over 10 years, the Court chose to assess the compensation directly rather than remanding the case. (!)
• The deceased's monthly income was computed at Rs.4,277/- based on prevailing minimum wages since documentary evidence for the claimed Rs.18,000/- was lacking. (!)
• Future prospects were considered based on the deceased's age of 30 years at the time of the accident, referencing National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi. (!)
• The assessment of compensation was guided by the principles laid down in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram. (!)
• The final decision awarded the appellants a total sum of Rs.11,86,130/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim petition. (!)
• The appeal was allowed, the impugned award was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay the awarded amount with interest. (!)